Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20190042 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Breast: Is a breast resection showing invasive mucinous carcinoma in a single tumor with associated ductal carcinoma in situ and additional findings of a background of lobular carcinoma in situ single or multiple primaries and which M rule applies? See Discussion |
Example: Right breast core biopsy found ductal carcinoma in situ in the upper outer quadrant. Subsequent resection has a final diagnosis of invasive mucinous carcinoma, grade 1, measuring approximately 7 mm, with close margins. See staging summary. Gross description mentions only the primary tumor with associated marker clip from previous biopsy. Breast Cancer Staging Summary lists (testing and margins removed for brevity): Procedure type: Lumpectomy. Specimen laterality: Right. Tumor size: 7mm. Histologic type: Invasive mucinous carcinoma. Histologic grade (Nottingham histologic score): Grade 1, (score 5/9). Tumor focality: Single focus. Lymph-vascular invasion: Not identified. Treatment effect: No known therapy. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): Present. Architectural pattern: Cribriform. Nuclear grade: Grade 1. Necrosis: Not identified. Calcifications: Not identified. Estimated size/extent of DCIS: Spanning an area measuring 15mm. Pathologic stage: pT1b, pNx. (AJCC 8th ed). Distant metastasis: Not applicable. Additional findings: Background lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), flat epithelial atypia (FEA), and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH). |
Apply Breast Solid Tumor Rule M3, abstract a single tumor when there is a single tumor, as there is reference to the primary, single 7 mm tumor. Apply Rule H7 and code the invasive histology only, mucinous carcinoma, when both invasive and in situ components are present. The rules state: Do not use Table 2 Histology Combination Codes for tumors with both invasive and in situ behavior. |
2019 |
|
|
20190103 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: What M rule applies to a clinically diagnosed right-sided parietal meningioma undergoing active surveillance, followed by a left-sided frontal anaplastic oligodendroglioma? See Discussion. |
The patient has two, separate, non-contiguous tumors. One tumor is a benign meningioma and the other is a malignant oligodendroglioma. The original plan was not to treat the asymptomatic meningioma. However, after worsening symptoms, imaging and resection proved a separate left frontal lobe malignant tumor. Rule M5 is the only M Rule in the Malignant CNS Multiple Primary Rules, Multiple Tumors module that addresses separate non-malignant and malignant tumors. This rule provides only two criteria to follow when a malignant tumor follows a non-malignant tumor. The first criteria (for non-malignant tumor followed by malignant tumor) states: --Patient had a resection of the non-malignant tumor (not the same tumor) OR --It is unknown/not documented if the patient had a resection. This patient did not have a resection of the original, separate, non-malignant tumor, but the treatment plan was known to not include a resection. Should Rule M5 also apply to cases where the patient never had treatment planned for the separate non-malignant tumor? |
Apply 2018 Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rule M5 and abstract multiple primaries when there are multiple CNS tumors, one of which is malignant /3 and the other is non-malignant /0 or /1. According to Note 3, a non-malignant CNS tumor and a malignant CNS tumor are always multiple primaries (timing and primary sites are irrelevant). Prepare two abstracts; one for the non-malignant and another for the malignant tumor. |
2019 |
|
|
20160028 | MP/H/Histology--Sarcoma: How should Ewing Sarcoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET) be coded for a 2012 case? See Discussion. |
SEER SINQ 20031051 applies to cases diagnosed before 2007 and advises: Code histology as 9260/3, Ewing sarcoma. Ewing sarcoma is a specific histology on the continuum of primitive neuroectodermal tumors. Code Ewing sarcoma as it is more specific than PNET, NOS.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. |
Apply 2007 MP/H rule H6 and assign the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code that reflects PNET (9364/3). According to the WHO Tumors of Soft Tissue and Bone, though Ewing sarcoma ICD-O-3 code is 9260/3, Ewing sarcoma with a higher degree of neuroectodermal differentiation present is classically termed peripheral neuroectodermal tumors (PNET). WHO does not offer guidance how to classify tumors stated to be Ewing sarcoma PNET.
Histology code 9364/3 is assigned for a Ewing/PNET that arises outside of the brain/CNS. Peripheral neuroectodermal tumor (PNET) and peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PPNET) are Ewing family tumors.
Histology code 9473/3 (PNET, primitive neuroectodermal tumor, central primitive neuroectodermal tumor, or supratentorial PNET) is only used for tumors arising inside the brain/CNS. |
2016 |
|
|
20180065 | Immunotherapy: Is immunotherapy ever palliative treatment according to any oncologists or SEER? |
Any treatment that destroys or modifies cancer tissue should be recorded as the appropriate type of treatment -- chemo, immuno, etc. Even if immunotherapy is given for symptoms/palliative treatment, it is likely to kill off tumor cells. |
2018 | |
|
|
20240010 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Prostate: Other Sites Solid Tumor RulesTable 3 (Prostate Histologies), Note 1 in the Adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (8574/3) row, conflicts with Note 2 and requires further clarification. See Discussion. |
Note 1 states that this histology is treatment-related neuroendocrine prostatic carcinoma demonstrating complete neuroendocrine differentiation or partial neuroendocrine differentiation with adenocarcinoma after androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Conversely, Note 2 says to code 8574/3 only when there is no history of previous prostate adenocarcinoma or history of androgen-deprivation therapy. The WHO Blue Book does confirm this is a treatment-related histology, so it seems we would only use this for an adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (or even possibly a mixed histology tumor with adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma components) if the patient had previous treatment. If this histology is treatment-related, why would we use this code for a patient without a history of prostate adenocarcinoma or androgen-deprivation therapy? Should Note 2 be corrected? Does this histology apply to a post-treatment diagnosis of mixed adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma? If yes, should this clarification be added? |
Answer updated September 2025 Per consultation with a male genital and urinary subject matter expert pathologist, if a patient with a previous diagnosis of acinar adenocarcinoma (or a subtype variant of 8140/3) of the prostate was treated with radiation and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT, a form of hormonal therapy), the following subsequent diagnoses are NOT a new primary.
For example, a patient is diagnosed with acinar adenocarcinoma and undergoes hormone therapy. Two years later, the patient is diagnosed with adenosquamous carcinoma. The adenosquamous carcinoma should be considered treatment-related and is not a new primary. |
2024 |
|
|
20240071 | Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms/Multiple Primaries--Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: Are essential thrombocytosis (ET) in 1998 and primary myelofibrosis in 2022 the same primary or is the 2022 diagnosis a new primary? See Discussion.
|
Patient was diagnosed with essential thrombocytosis 9962/1 or 3 in 1998 (depending if ET was reportable in 1998), treated with Hydrea. 11-17-2022 Blood smear: CALR + myeloproliferative neoplasm, Most Consistent with Primary Myelofibrosis 9961/3 (Noted CALR and ASXL1 mutations). The following abstractor note from 9661/3 is confusing: A diagnosis of "post essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis" is a progression of essential thrombocythemia and would be the same primary. |
Answer updated September 2025: Abstract a single primary as primary myelofibrosis (9961/3). ET was not reportable in 1998. |
2024 |
|
|
20200057 | Histology--Lung: Is there a better code for SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasms than 8000/3 that could be used especially given its aggressive nature? This term is not included in the Lung Solid Tumor Rules or ICD-O-3.1 and 3.2. See Discussion. |
Per Mayo consulting pathologist, the final diagnosis on this right lung biopsy is: SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm (see Comment). Comment: Sections show a poorly-differentiated malignant neoplasm without any apparent glandular, squamous, or stromal differentiation. The tumor near totally replaces the underlying lung tissue without recognizable underlying alveolar parenchyma. Immunohistochemical stains performed at Mayo Clinic (Oscar keratin, INSM1, NUT, S100, desmin and BRG1 protein encoded by SMARCA4 gene) demonstrate that the malignant cells are positive for Oscar keratin (rare cells only), synaptophysin (weak/patchy) and p63 (focal) while negative for the remaining antibodies tested. Of note, SMARCA4 stain is negative in the tumor cells. Thus, this tumor can be categorized as a SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm, which is known to be an aggressive malignancy, likely represent a SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcoma, a recently described entity. SMARCA4-deficient carcinomas in the lung have been reported to be mostly adenocarcinomas or squamous cell carcinomas, which would not fit for this case. Please refer to a paper published by our group (Sauter JL et al. Mod Pathol 2017;30:1422-32. |
Answer updated August 2025 Assign code 8044/3. WHO Classification of Thoracic Tumors, 5th edition, classifies SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm as Thoracic SMARCA4-deficient undifferentiated tumor (SMARCA4-UT). |
2020 |
|
|
20230018 | SEER Manual/First Course Treatment--Chemotherapy: Does the First Course of Treatment end when subcategories change for treatments such as hormone therapy or immunotherapy or is that instruction specific to chemotherapy? See Discussion. |
Treatment for estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer started with tamoxifen (non-steroidal estrogen subcategory) and switched to letrozole (non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor subcategory). Patient being treated with immunotherapy, Avastin (cytostatic agent-antiangiogenesis agent subcategory), and then changed to Atezolizumab (monoclonal antibody subcategory). Is Atezolizumab a new course of therapy because it is a different subcategory? |
Answer updated April 2025 A change in the subcategory for a hormone drug does not indicate the end of First Course of Treatment because different hormone therapies generally achieve the same result. For example, some forms of breast cancer are estrogen-dependent and the various subcategories of hormone drugs used to treat them, such as gonadotropin-releasing factor agonists, aromatase inhibitors and estrogen antagonists, all achieve the same result - to block estradiol effects in these tumors. Similarly, a change in immunotherapy is not a new course of treatment. However, if a change to hormone therapy or immunotherapy is due to a change in the patient's ER, PR, or Her2 status, this could signify a new course of treatment. The instruction in the SEER Manual is specific to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is the only systemic treatment for which a change in the subcategory of a drug indicates the end of First Course of Treatment, due to the fact that different chemical agents damage cancer cells in different ways and at different phases in the cell cycle. |
2023 |
|
|
20071028 | MP/H Rules--Lung: Why the term "nodule" is not included as an equivalent term along with tumor, mass, lesion and neoplasm in the 2007 lung multiple primary rules? | Answer revised July 2008 For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: For the purpose of applying the Lung MP/H rules, the word "Nodule" can be used interchageably with "Tumor," "Mass," "Lesion" and "Neoplasm." HOWEVER, this does NOT apply to casefinding or staging. This revision will be added to the next version of the MP/H rules. Sinq question 20071028 will be revised. |
2007 | |
|
|
20210037 | Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Thyroid: Is category Thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) 4 (4a/4b) or TI-RADS 5 on imaging diagnostic of thyroid cancer, and if so, can we use the date of the impression on the scan that states either of these categories as the diagnosis date? |
Answer revised 3/31/2022 Do not report cases based only on the TI-RADS category. The most recent information from ACR on TI-RADS indicates that neither TI-RADS 4 nor TI-RADS 5 is clearly defined as malignancy. TI-RADS 4 is "moderately suspicious" and TI-RADS 5 is "highly suspicious" but they do not specify what they are suspicious for. We need more information to determine reportability. |
2021 |
An official website of the United States government
